Passionate about IP! Since June 2003 the IPKat weblog has covered copyright, patent, trade mark, info-tech and privacy/confidentiality issues from a mainly UK and European perspective. The team is David Brophy, Birgit Clark, Merpel, Jeremy Phillips, Eleonora Rosati, Darren Smyth, Annsley Merelle Ward and Neil J. Wilkof. You're welcome to read, post comments and participate in our community. You can email the Kats here

For the half-year to 30 June 2015, the IPKat's regular team is supplemented by contributions from guest bloggers Suleman Ali, Tom Ohta and Valentina Torelli.

Regular round-ups of the previous week's blogposts are kindly compiled by Alberto Bellan.

Wednesday, 8 August 2012

The IPKat had previously mentioned a passing-off case in the Irish courts between rival bakeries. It received some minor references from the IPKat in a number of MondayMiscellanies and WednesdayWhimsies, but never the full limelight of a dedicated post. However the original High Court decision has now been adjudicated on appeal in the Supreme Court, so its time has come. The case is McCambridge
Limited v Joseph Brennan Bakeries [2012] IESC 46, for which there is a majority
decision (here) and a dissenting judgment (here).

The case raises
interesting questions about the interplay between get-up and purchasing
decisions, especially where some shoppers may not have seen the allegedly
similar elements of get-up. And what if the only evidence of confusion arises
from shoppers who clearly failed to see the most prominent branding elements
distinguishing the respective products?

McCambridge's - the plaintiff in the passing-off action

The High Court decision of Mr Justice Peart outlined the facts and confirmed something the IPKat has long known: humans are messy creatures, alas. Supermarket
proprietors arrange their produce neatly in ordered ranks on shelves. Then shoppers pick goods up,
leave them down again in the wrong spot, and generally rummage through the merchandise. What may have been a neatly stacked shelf of goods at 8 a.m. may become a disordered mess of jumbled products by mid-afternoon.

In those
circumstances, products which are only branded on the front surface, like the
package of McCambridge's bread shown above, can end up with their labels not
visible.Now, along comes a competitor's
product having the same generic packaging type (square-ish sliced loaf in a clear
plastic tray, inside a clear plastic bag branded on the front). That product is
Brennan's wholewheat bread, shown below.

Brennan's - the defendant

Both products are
sold on the same shelves, sometimes alongside one another, and may get jumbled
together. Evidence showed that a small number of shoppers who were intending to
buy McCambridge's bread had, from time to time, picked up the Brennan's
product and have even exited the shop having paid for it. Such evidence of shoppers leaving the store with
the wrong product is normally a classic indicator for passing-off.

The trial judge held on the evidence that there had been confusion,
notwithstanding the prominence of the red-and-yellow Brennan's logo. (Incidentally, Brennan's is probably the best known brand of bread sold in Ireland generally, so the brand is extremely recognisable.) Peart J. said
that:

"... if the
same customer was to look at and examine the product when in the hand, or
indeed again when it is in the shopping basket or trolley, or indeed later
again at the checkout area the brand name and distinctive brand colouring of
the Brennans product would be observed, and any such customer who wanted the
McCambridge product would be able to return the Brennans product and replace it
with the McCambridge loaf if it was available on the shelf …”

Nevertheless, he held that in the circumstances of how products were bought in supermarkets, even a "reasonably
careful and observant customer may not read or notice in particular the front
panel of the package" until it was in the hand.

"For the average shopper therefore,
the competing brand name and indeed the distinctive red and yellow brand
colours on the Brennans product or other distinguishing features may not be
readily and clearly visible when the product is on the shelf. Each product
looks almost identical from that angle and vantage point being of the same
general shape and size."

The Supreme Court
had to decide if the judge had erred on a point of law. The majority, in a
judgment written by MacMenamin J., found that the trial judge was entitled to
reach the conclusions he did on the evidence before him, and that he had
correctly applied the proper test, which was essentially the three point test
expressed by the House of Lords in Reckitt and Colman Products Limited v. Borden Inc., which had previously been confirmed by the Irish Supreme Court. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

The "Jif" lemon from Reckitt and Coleman v Borden

Brennan’s had argued that the
similarities were generic – the shape and type of packaging, the use of
descriptors such as “wholewheat”, and the use of the colour green – and that
McCambridge’s could not enjoy any goodwill in them. But MacMenamin J. held that the protectable get-up arose out of the combination of these generic
features with other, less generic ones, such as white-on-green writing; the use
of an off-yellow colour panel; the utilisation of a stylised signature and
similar font; the use of overhanging script against the main green panel; the
particular combination of colour schemes; the depiction of the head of wheat;
and the shadow effect behind the signature.

On its surface, this all may appear pretty uncontroversial – the get-up is the sum of the individual
elements and if enough of a well-known get-up is taken, then passing-off may
result, right? But wait: the trial judge said that if anyone actually looked at the label (where all the non-generic elements of get-up were found) then they would immediately have been disabused of any confusion.

The dissenting
judgment of Mr Justice Fennelly argues this point and, in this Kat's opinion, has a good deal of force. (This Kat has
no axe to grind in the dispute, being a confirmed fan of both McCambridge's
brown bread and Brennan's classic white sliced pan.)

In Fennelly J.'s
view, there had been confusion without passing-off. He noted the salient
findings made by the trial judge based on the evidence before him which had showed:

confusion might occur in particular
circumstances, such as when the loaves were in disarray and the packaging was
not clearly visible;

it was only in those
circumstances, when the labels were not visible, that there was any likelihood
of confusion; and

once the products were in hand and
examined, confusion would no longer be possible, in the estimation of the trial
judge.

In these circumstances Fennelly
J. found that the appellant’s
label was not the cause of confusion in the consumer’s mind, for the simple reason
that the consumer under consideration was assumed not even to have seen the
front panel of the package. In the sales situation envisaged, where loaves are
not neatly arrayed with their labels visible, the trial judge had said “each
product looks almost identical.” But Fennelly J. noted that the reason the trial judge gave for that
apparent identity in appearance was that the products were “of the same general
shape and size,” not that the packaging on Brennan’s loaf was misleadingly
similar to McCambridge’s.

He concluded that the trial judge had erred
in law by considering the case as one of mere confusion without requiring there
to have been a similarity in get-up which caused that confusion.

From this angle, the generic can top looks very much like the market leader...

In essence, Fennelly J.'s argument is that
it may be true, but was immaterial to the case in hand, that the get-up of a product
might be made up of both generic elements like the packaging type, shape and
size, and protectable elements like colour schemes, signatures, and so on. What
mattered was which of the elements of the get-up might have caused customers to pick up
the wrong loaf. And in this case, it could only have been the unprotectable
packaging type, shape and size, and not any of the other similar features which
the confused shoppers were explicitly assumed not to have seen.

This Kat (in full
knowledge that some of his more learned and expert colleagues will disagree) thinks
Mr Justice Fennelly probably got it right. If shoppers who see a clearly branded label will immediately know it is not the product they intended to buy, then one cannot rely on elements of that label to support passing-off on the basis of customers not seeing the label and being confused nonetheless. The fact that a case could be made that overall get-up was similar is a red herring. Customers who were confused were not misled by that similar get-up: they did not even see it; if they did see it, they were not confused.

The second
element in the passing-off test is that the public has been misled (or is
likely to be misled) into believing the defendant's product to be that of the
plaintiff as a result of a misrepresentation by the defendant made in the
course of trade.In this case, on the
findings of the trial judge, members of the public were victims of their own
assumptions as to the identity of a product for which they only saw the plain,
unbranded, generic package shape. The defendants did not cause this confusion
by any misrepresentation on their part. Brennan's undoubtedly adopted some
similar label elements and colour
schemes, but this did not lead to a misrepresentation which fooled the public.

Another perhaps more practical way to
view the situation is this: if a company knows that its market-leading products
are liable to sometimes appear on the supermarket shelves jumbled up and reversed,
and with only an unbranded rear or end surface of a generic package type visible, then it
can easily remedy this and protect against passing-off by branding those surfaces
and making them non-generic.

Thanks are due to the various readers who mailed the IPKat about this decision, with special mention to barrister Gemma O'Farrell.

The IPKat's sidebar contents

Want to complain?If you feel that you have been unfairly prevented from posting a comment on one of this weblog's features, here's what you can do about it

The IPKat's cousins: some IP-friendly blogs for youThe IPKat lists his 'family' of IP blogs, some of which focus on specific rights, geographical zones, markets or interests

How many page-views?See how many times the pages of the IPKat weblog have been purr-viewed

The Kat that tweetsToo short to blog? Some news and views are still worth airing, thanks to Twitter

Want to receive the IPKat weblog by email?You can get each post, or a digest, sent direct to your favourite mailbox

Not just any old IPKatEvery so often, this feline creeps into the limelight

The IPKat's RSS feeding arrangementsFeedburner and all those other things ...

What you've been sayingHere are the most recent readers' comments on the IPKat's posts

The IPKat's Greatest Hits!Here are the five posts on the IPKat's weblog that have received the most attention from readers over the past 30 days

Has the Kat got your tongue?Some translation facilities for readers whose first language is not English, or who are just plain masochistic

Creative Commons licenceYou too can make use of this blog's contents, if you follow the rules

The IPKat ArchiveAncient posts, going back to June 2003

Want to complain?

If you have posted a comment to one of our blogposts and it hasn't appeared, it may be because it doesn't match our criteria for moderation -- essentially that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should be relevant to the blogpost on which they purport to comment.

If you feel that your comment should have been moderated, please email the IPKat at theipkat@gmail.com and let him know, since it may be that your comment has been misdirected into the Blogger software's Spam file.

In the event that there has been no software malfunction and that your post has been rejected, if you want to appeal against this decision please contact either (i) Dr Danny Friedmann of theIP Dragonweblog (ipdragon@gmail.com) or (ii) Professor Dennis Crouch of the Patently-O weblog (dcrouch@patentlyo.com). Danny or Dennis will review your complaint, preserving the confidentiality of your identity and will let both you and us know whether your complaint is justified.

If your complaint relates to bias or distortion, the IPKat suggests that you contact him initially, bearing in mind that he and Merpel are generally willing to host pieces by guest contributors even when their opinions are at odds with those of this blog's contributors.